Talk:National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
March 11, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
July 17, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
April 5, 2009 Good article reassessment Kept
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Elections and Referendums  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
WikiProject United States / Presidential elections (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

3 states have 2014 bills that aren't mentioned /[edit]

Examples from the NCSL database. Note that the Maine bill this week passed the state senate on 1st reading.

Wow, I sure wish I had known about that website five years ago.... KarlFrei (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

MAINE ME S 201 / LD 511 [1] 2014 National Popular Vote for President Status: Pending - Joint Committee on Veterans and Legal Affairs Author: Woodbury (I) Topics: Electoral College-National Popular Vote Summary: Proposes to adopt the interstate compact that is the agreement among the states to elect the President of the United States by national popular vote. Under the compact and the bill, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia will win the presidency. Under this bill, all of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. History: Click for History 02/19/2013 - INTRODUCED. 02/19/2013 - Filed as LR 1605. 02/19/2013 - SENATE refers to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS. 02/19/2013 - HOUSE refers to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS in concurrence. 07/09/2013 - 126th Legislature -- First Regular Session Adjourned - 07/10/13 - Carried Over to Next Session. 02/27/2014 - From JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS: with divided report. 03/04/2014 - HOUSE commits to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS. 03/05/2014 - HOUSE refers to JOINT Committee on VETERANS AND LEGAL AFFAIRS in concurrence.

MICHIGAN MI S 291 2014 Presidential Elections Status: Pending - Senate Local Government and Elections Committee Date of Last Action:* 4/10/2013 Author: Warren (D) Topics: Electoral College-National Popular Vote Summary: Enters into the interstate compact to elect the president by national popular vote, for related purposes. History: Click for History 04/10/2013 - INTRODUCED. 04/10/2013 - To SENATE Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND ELECTIONS.

PENNSYLVANIA PA H 1182 2014 Presidential Elect by National Popular Vote Status: Pending - House State Government Committee Date of Last Action:* 4/15/2013 Author: Cohen (D) Additional Authors: Caltagirone (D);Fleck (R);Gibbons (D);Pashinski (D);Swanger (R);Boyle B (D);Brown V (D);Davis (D);Flynn (D);Parker (D);Wheatley (D);Goodman (D);Dermody (D);Hanna (D);Mundy (D);Roebuck (D);Sturla (D);Thomas (D);Vitali (D);Waters (D);Painter (D) Topics: Electoral College-National Popular Vote Summary: Authorizes the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to join the Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote, provides for the form of the agreement.

RRichie (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


I understand that, as soon as states representing a majority (270) of the electoral votes ratify it it goes into effect, but in such a case, is the compact permanently in effect, or only as long as the states accepting it represent a majority? For example, let's say that at some point, the states adopting it represent exactly 270 electors, so it goes into effect. However, in the next reapportionment, those states collectively lose, say, two electors, so that those states now have only 268 electors, would the compact continue in effect or would it stop working? Also, what if a state withdrew from the compact causing the number of electors to drop below the majority? Admittedly, these probably aren't practical concerns, as it's unlikely that state ratifications of the compact would stop right at the point of just barely being a majority, but does the compact address those possibilities? XinaNicole (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The text of the compact is actually linked to in the article. The last line of Article III says it all: "This article shall govern the appointment of presidential electors in each member state in any year in which this agreement is, on July 20, in effect in states cumulatively possessing a majority of the electoral votes." KarlFrei (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


Several bins have been introduced this year, some to introduce the NPVIC, some to repeal it:

In total 9 states. It would be nice if somebody with more free time than me could update the article (including the figure at the top!) and put in a new table with current bills. KarlFrei (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, that's very helpful. I found 13 bills: 6 failed (including OK and OR which are still shown as pending in the link), 2 pending in MI and MN to introduce the compact, 3 pending in MA and NJ to repeal it, and 2 pending in NY to make it permanent (did NY adopt it with an expiration date?). I added MI and MN to the article, including the map. Heitordp (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

"Possible partisan advantage"[edit]

Per wiki guidelines I will assume good faith of page editors. However, I will not extend that to supporters of the NPVIC. It is a partisan movement with partisan objectives that originated in a partisan perspective of an event that had partisan consequences and which offended partisan sensibilities about "majority rule".

That said, I am disappointed with what appear to be efforts to gloss over the partisan nature of this movement, and I suggest that if you honestly do not believe the NPVIC is a partisan action then you should check your own political alignment for a COI. Democrats (or "the left") have never benefited from the electoral college. Even if one can (nonsensically) argue that electoral margins have sometimes come in higher than the popular margins for a Democratic president, the electoral college model has never actually swung an election to a Democrat.

The NPVIC originated in the wake of the 2000 electoral college victory of George W. Bush, a particularly stinging defeat for Democrats. The compact was proposed by a liberal professor at a liberal university, and has been adopted exclusively by liberal stronghold states. This is a partisan proposition.

I am happy to admit -- as the article alludes in its Nate Silver reference -- that opposition to the NPVIC is decidedly partisan. How then is supporting it presumed to be nonpartisan? I submit that the popular basis for supporting the compact, "majority rule", is itself a partisan priority, and even NPVIC supporters on the right do so only because of the left's success at rebranding majority rule as a politically correct surrogate for the rule of law. I do not buy this argument, and I do not buy the popular portrayal of the compact as nonpartisan/bipartisan as objective or unbiased.

The authors of the compact have an agenda. Its supporters have no less of an agenda than those who oppose it. I intend to recharacterize the article's coverage of "partisanship", and I want to discuss those changes here instead of having an edit war about it.

Thoughts? Cpurick (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there are partisan motivations, but it is not so clear who benefits. Contrary to what you say, Democrats did benefit from the Electoral College in 1960. Roger (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The "flaw" in the electoral college is that occasionally a president is elected who lost the popular vote to the other candidate. That flaw has never worked in the Democrats' favor. Kennedy beat Nixon in both the popular vote and the electoral vote, with the point being that nobody was left feeling that their more popular candidate was cheated on a technicality. You could argue that the electoral college allowed Kennedy to win an electoral majority while having only a plurality of the vote, but nobody thought Nixon lost despite having a higher vote count nationwide. (They mainly thought he lost because Richard Daly had delivered Cook County cemeteries to JFK, which is different.) Cpurick (talk) 03:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
As User:Schlafly said, it's far from clear that the NPVIC would consistently favor one party or the other. We've already included numerous quotes from opponents who suggest it would, but to take those quotes at face value would not be supportable by fact. To my mind, the failure (thus far) of deep-red states to pass the NPVIC, against their best interests, is a result of bandwagoning and spitefulness, not carefully considered electoral calculus. Swpbtalk 20:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
As a historical matter, a lot of Nixon supporters did feel that they were cheated in 1960. According to them, Kennedy could win by stealing just 2 states, I think. Whether Kennedy won the popular vote is debatable. See [2]. Also, the electoral college also worked to the benefit of the Democrats in 1992 and 1996. Bill Clinton failed to win a majority of the popular vote both times, and only got 43% in 1992. Because of the way the E.C. works, Perot could get millions of popular votes, but no electoral votes. Clinton could claim the legitimacy of a majority, because he got a majority of the E.C. votes, and also a majority of the states. If he had been elected by the NPVIC, there would have been a lot of complaints about his legitimacy. Roger (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

New section suggestion[edit]

I would like to suggest that the following subsections be grouped into a separate section as they focus specifically on the history and progress of the NPVIC: 4.3-Academic plan; 4.4-Organization and advocacy; 4.5-Adoption; 4.6-Currently active bills; 4.7-Bills in previous sessions. Drdpw (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The "History" section itself ought to focus on the NPVIC; earlier reform attempts are an aside. Thus, I have instead subsumed the subsections on the two previous attempts at amendments into a level-3 subsection "Proposals to abolish the Electoral college by amendment". This maintains the section structure that has long been in place. Swpbtalk 18:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)